Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, North America
Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, North America
复制标题
北美高等教育的自主权和问责制
DOI：
10.1007/978-94-017-8905-9_164
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Eaton
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Eaton
许多理论都表明科学与工程、大学和经济之间的联系越来越紧密。其中比较突出的是三重螺旋（Etzkowitz et al. 1998）、模式2（Gibbons et al. 1994）和创业型大学（Clark 1998）。在许多情况下，三重螺旋（科学、政府、产业）是一种描述性的、双赢的叙事，庆祝大学与产业合作关系的出现，这种合作关系被认为是经济发展和繁荣的引擎。大学之所以获胜，是因为它们拥有知识产权，从而为研究带来收入;产业之所以获胜，是因为它们获得了大学发现的科学和技术创造力。然而，这一理论使大学作为一种机构，在技术转让活动之外相对没有受到审查。政府也没有被分析，除了它为研究提供资金之外，而工业通常被重点放在其作为科学伙伴的能力上，而不是位于特定的政治经济中。知识转移的过程比三重螺旋所暗示的要复杂得多，其结果在经济创新方面也远不清楚，而欧盟和美国的大学从研究中产生的收入相当有限（Geuna和Muscio 2009; Powers 2003）。模式2（Gibbons et al. 1994）分析了从学科和专业协会控制的科学和嵌入大学到由工业需求驱动的全球创业科学的转变的后果，导致了一种及时科学，将科学家和工程师团队部署在世界各地的项目上，并在完成时解散他们。尽管模式2的许多分析贡献，这一理论低估了大学作为机构的实力。研究型大学--至少是它们的科学、技术、工程和数学（STEM）领域--继续蓬勃发展。同样，模式2低估了国家和非营利部门的作用。尽管国家在新自由主义下失宠，
A number of theories speak to the increasing alignment between science and engineering, universities, and the economy. Among the more prominent are the triple helix (Etzkowitz et al. 1998), Mode 2 (Gibbons et al. 1994), and entrepreneurial universities (Clark 1998). The triple helix (science, government, industry) is in many cases a descriptive, win–win narrative that celebrates the decontextualized emergence of university-industry partnerships that are assumed to be engines of economic development and prosperity.Universities win because they claim intellectual property that leads to income for research; industries win because they gain access to the scientific and technological creativity of university-based discoveries. However, the theory leaves universities as institutions relatively unexamined beyond technology transfer activities. Nor is government analyzed, other than in its provision of funds for research, while industry is usually focused upon in its capacity as partner with science, and not as located in specific political economies. The process of knowledge transfer is much more complex than the triple helix suggests, and the results, in terms of economic innovation, are far from clear, while university generation of income from research in both the EU and US has been quite limited (Geuna and Muscio 2009; Powers 2003). Mode 2 (Gibbons et al. 1994) analyzes the consequences of a shift from science controlled by disciplines and professional associations and embedded in universities to global entrepreneurial science driven by industrial demand, resulting in a sort of just-in-time science that deploys teams of scientists and engineers on projects around the world and disbands them on completion. Despite Mode 2’s many analytic contributions, this theory underestimates the strength of universities as institutions. Research universities–at least their science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields–continue to flourish. Similarly, Mode 2 underestimates the role of the state and nonprofit sectors. Although the state has fallen into disfavor under neoliberalism, it